ORDER

1. This application under section 482 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 30.7.2019 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, to the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge Vidisha in Criminal Revision No. 6/2019, by which the order dated 15.3.2019 passed by J.M.F.C., Vidisha in Criminal Case No. 2061/2015 has been set aside and the respondent has been permitted to cross examine the applicant/complainant.

2. The necessary facts for disposal of present application in short are that the applicant has filed a criminal complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. By order dated 12.7.2016, the trial Magistrate, directed that in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank Association v. Union of India reported in (2014) 5 SCC 590, the respondent may file an application seeking permission to cross examine the complainant. However, no such application was filed. Thereafter, 20.10.2016, it was held by the trial Magistrate, that since, the respondent has not sought permission to cross examine the complainant, therefore, permission can not be granted and accordingly, the case was fixed for examination of the respondent under section 313 of CrPC. Thereafter, it appears that the respondent filed an application for cross examination of the complainant, but the said application was rejected by order dated 8.12.2016, by holding that the trial Magistrate has no power to review its order. It appears that against the order dated 20.10.2016, the respondent preferred a revision, which was dismissed by the Revisional Court. It appears that once again the respondent filed an application for recall of complainant for cross examination. The said application was dismissed by order dated 15.3.2019.

4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 15.3.2019, the respondent filed a revision, which has been allowed by the revisional Court by holding that cross examination is an important tool in the hand of the accused and the said right should not be taken away.

5. Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant, that the revisional Court has not considered the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank Association (supra), and should not have allowed the revision.

6. None appears for the respondent though served.

7. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant.

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank Association (supra), has held as under :

23. Many of the directions given by the various High Courts, in our view, are worthy of emulation by the criminal Courts all over the country dealing with cases under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for which the following directions are being given :

23.1. The Metropolitan Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate (MM/JM), on the day when the complaint under section 138 of the Act is presented, shall scrutinise the complaint and, if the complaint is accompanied by the affidavit, and the affidavit and the documents, if any, are found to be in order, take cognizance and direct issuance of summons.

23.2. The MM/JM should adopt a pragmatic and realistic approach while issuing summons. Summons must be properly addressed and sent by post as well as by e-mail address got from the complainant. The Court, in appropriate cases, may take the assistance of the police or the nearby Court to serve notice on the accused. For notice of appearance, a short date be fixed. If the summons is received back unserved, immediate follow-up action be taken.

23.3. The Court may indicate in the summons that if the accused makes an application for compounding of offences at the first hearing of the case and, if such an application is made, the Court may pass appropriate orders at the earliest.

23.4. The Court should direct the accused, when he appears to furnish a bail bond, to ensure his appearance during trial and ask him to take notice under section 251 CrPC to enable him to enter his plea of defence and fi